The Remainers are so desperate about Britain leaving the EU without a deal that they are trying to demonise the prospect of a No Deal scenario. The scaremongering has reached such absurd levels that we have even been threatened with a shortage of Mars Bars.

The latest pathetic, pessimistic and unpatriotic nonsense comes from The Economist – a pathetic, humourless excuse for a magazine (it is obviously a magazine but likes to call itself a newspaper though for all I know this could be because they get better postage rates).

Over the last few decades I have learned to regard The Economist as a useful guide because they always get things reliably wrong. If The Economist says it’s raining then you can bet that it’s sunny. It is an excellent contradictory sign post and a propaganda sheet full of misguided opinions. It is a magazine which is out of touch and badly written and which reeks of wrong opinions and prejudices. It is no wonder that on Brexit they line up with war criminal Tony Blair and the world’s most evil bank – Goldman Sachs.

After attacking Brexiteers as `ideologues’ (meaning that they believe in something) the latest edition of `The Economist’ claims to tell the truth about a no deal.

But their idea of the truth is, predictably and inevitably, simply a homage to the EU: an egregious piece of one sided scaremongering.

The fact is that leaving the EU without a deal would be great for Britain but it would be terrible for the European Union. Hitler and his chums will be sobbing in despair at the prospect of Britain leaving the EU without handing over its future and £39 billion.

Here’s why The Economist claims that leaving with a No Deal would be disastrous:

1. `Reneging on £39 billion in obligations to the EU would devastate Britain’s international credibility.’ – This is clearly bollocks. No one outside Brussels thinks we should pay blood money to escape the fascist bastards in Brussels.
2. `Reaching no deal on the Irish border would test the Good Friday Agreement.’ – This is total rubbish. The two have nothing to do with one another.
3. `Britain would be ruined by the 10% tariffs that the EU would impose on British exports.’ – More bollocks. The EU sells far more to us than we sell to them. It’s the EU which is terrified of tariffs on exports. Besides, trade with the EU is 8% of Britain’s trade.
4. `We will see the demise of farming’. – This is beyond silly. The Common Agricultural Policy (which we help pay for) throws billions of euros in subsidies at incompetent French farmers. Britain and its farmers would thrive outside the EU.
5. `Essentials drying up, travellers stranded, motorways gridlocked.’ – This is gold plated nonsense. I especially like the idea of our motorways being gridlocked because we have left the EU without handing over £39 billion. In fact, without all the Irish lorries using Britain as a free land bridges our motorways would be a lot emptier.
6. `Mrs May has won the grudging respect, if not the affection of voters.’ – Here’s the hard evidence that `The Economist’ is living on another planet. Really? Respect? The woman is a regarded as a traitor and an incompetent fool – more loyal to the enemy than to Britain.
7. `A no deal Brexit…would put at risk air travel, electricity interconnections and a raft of financial services.’ – And the EU would presumably also take all the oxygen out of our air. This is dafter than the sort of nonsense vomited up by Carney at the Wank of England.
8. `A no deal Brexit…would throw into doubt the status of EU citizens in Britain and British citizens in the EU.’ – This would only happen if the EU decided to throw a moody. And there are far more EU citizens in Britain. So any nonsense would hurt the EU far more than it would hurt us. (It gradually becomes clear that The Economist is worried far more about the EU than about Britain.)
9. `The French will impose checks at many ports.’ – Maybe they will. Macron is a loony. But if they do then we’ll use non-French ports. And France would soon surrender. (It’s what they do best.) And remember, many of the lorries at our ports are Irish. Outside the EU the Irish goods will have to travel by sea. Our roads will be clearer and our ports quieter. The Economist forgot to mention this.
10. `If the export mechanism grinds to a halt the newly exclusive access to British waters enjoyed by the country’s fisherfolk may bring them little joy.’ – More rubbish. If the EU wants our fish we will still be able to sell them fish.
11. `Britain provides most of the gas that keeps Irish homes warm.’ – This is true. If Ireland wants to play hard ball then we can freeze the mean bastards to death.
12. `London is easily Europe’s biggest centre for trading…clearing in London would no longer be available for clients in the EU after a no-deal Brexit – bad for the City, worse for many EU investors.’ – Aha. The Economist is definitely worrying more about the EU. It will be EU banks and financial institutions which will crumble if we leave without a deal – and the EU insists on playing tough. Good riddance.
13. `There will be a fall in the pound.’ – Probably true – but maybe not as bad as predicted. And Carney has been talking down the pound anyway. If the pound falls our exporters will benefit enormously. (The Economist says: `It is possible that cheap sterling might spur on exporters.’ – nice of them to notice.)
14. `Britain would fall out of the EU’s crime-fighting agencies…and lose the right to use the European Arrest Warrant.’ – Great! This would stop tin pot EU countries using the Warrant to arrest British citizens for nothing. Last year we wanted to arrest 278 citizens from the EU. But EU countries demanded 16,837 Britons.
15. `The IMF estimates that the Irish would lose 4% of its GDP.’ – Good. I don’t give a fig.
16. `Both Guinness and Bailey’s Irish Cream cross the border for canning, bottling and export.’ – Another Irish problem. What do we care? The Irish have made themselves our enemies.
17. The Economist warns of: `The national nightmare of a Mars Bar shortage.’ – This isn’t irony. The Economist doesn’t do irony. I guess they really do think that the threat of a Mars Bar shortage will terrify the voters.
18. The Economist suggests that the EU would `pursue some of what is not paid through an international court’. – Really? Is anyone supposed to take that seriously? I’m surprised the magazine didn’t warn the EU would declare war on us. (As if they would dare.)
19. `Neither British airlines nor European ones would necessarily be able to fly from Britain to America.’ – This is clearly intended as a joke. I don’t think anyone outside The Economist offices believes this is a real risk.
20. `The Economist is stockpiling around 30 tonnes of the paper on which the covers of our British edition are printed.’ – It’s good to know the idiots have scared themselves with their own absurd scenario.

Finally, let’s look at some facts which The Economist missed:

1. Only 8% of our trade is with the EU. The other 92% of our trade will be completely unaffected by anything we do with the EU.
2. If the EU decides to destroy itself and impose tariffs on British goods the tariffs will be small because the WTO doesn’t allow big tariffs. Remember too that the EU sells us far more stuff than we sell them. Germany would be in dire trouble if we stopped buying German cars.
3. Leaving the EU without a deal will involve compliance costs. But most of the money has already been spent by companies preparing for a `no deal’. It was a one off cost and it has been paid.
4. Supply chains will be unaffected. Shipping can avoid the EU completely and bring goods straight into the EU – and it’s been made clear that this will happen. Threats of shortages are typical `Project Fear’ nonsense.
5. Threats of a crisis if we leave without a deal are on a par with the treats of a crisis because of the Millenium Bug. Remember that nonsense?